Re: [PATCH 1/1] of: unittest: rename overlay source files from .dts to .dtso

[Frank Rowand]

On 5/26/21 8:22 PM, David Gibson wrote:
> On Wed, May 26, 2021 at 04:21:48PM -0500, Frank Rowand wrote:
>> On 5/26/21 1:11 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
>>> On 22-04-21, 13:54, Frank Rowand wrote:
>>>> On 4/22/21 3:44 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>>>>> Hi Frank, Rob,
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Mar 29, 2021 at 9:23 PM Frank Rowand <frowand.list@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/27/21 12:40 PM, Rob Herring wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 05:37:13PM -0500, frowand.list@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>>>>>>> From: Frank Rowand <frank.rowand@xxxxxxxx>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Add Makefile rule to build .dtbo.o assembly file from overlay .dtso
>>>>>>>> source file.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Rename unittest .dts overlay source files to use .dtso suffix.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm pretty lukewarm on .dtso...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I was originally also, but I'm warming up to it.
>>>>>
>>>>> What's the status of this?
>>>>
>>>> I was planning to resend on top of the upcoming -rc1.
>>>
>>> Ping.
>>>
>>
>> Thanks for the prod...
>>
>> The .dtso convention was added to the dtc compiler, then a patch was
>> accepted to revert one mention of .dtso ,though there still remains
>> two location where .dtbo is still recognized (guess_type_by_name() in
>> dtc and the help text of the fdtoverlay program).
>>
>> It seems that the general .dtso and .dtbo were not popular, so I'm
>> going to drop this patch instead of continuing to try to get it
>> accepted.
> 
> AFAICT .dtbo is moderately well established, and I think it's a good
> convention, since it matters whether a blob is an overlay or base
> tree, and it's not trivial to tell which is which.
> 
> .dtso is much more recent, and I think there's much less value to it.
> 

Thanks for the correction, I misunderstood your thoughts.

-Frank